The bullying of academics follows a pattern of horrendous, Orwellian elimination rituals, often hidden from the public. Despite the anti-bullying policies (often token), bullying is rife across campuses, and the victims (targets) often pay a heavy price.
"Nothing strengthens authority as much as silence." Leonardo da Vinci - "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men [or good women] do nothing." Edmund Burke

March 19, 2013

A once-prominent University of Iowa surgeon was stripped of key duties after a messy disciplinary dispute with the school
and then allowed to quietly resign a year later, according to a
settlement agreement released Monday after a two-year fight for access
by The Associated Press (AP).

The AP had asked for copies of
resignation agreements and similar deals made with College of Medicine
employees during a time when the school’s handling of faculty
disciplinary issues was in the spotlight. The surgeon fought the release
of documents related to him by filing a lawsuit in February 2011 that
listed him only as “John Doe.”

The agreement identifies the former
employee as surgeon John Chaloupka, an expert in treating brain
aneurysms who directed interventional neuroradiology at UI Hospitals and
Clinics. Chaloupka now works in a similar, high-level position at Mount
Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Fla. Chaloupka and his attorney,
Philip Mears, of Iowa City, did not immediately return messages left
Monday by the AP.

The
settlement shows Chaloupka agreed not to make “disparaging remarks”
about the university and that he and university officials agreed they
would say only that he left to pursue another opportunity. It also says
three other university doctors, John Buatti, Matthew Howard, and David
Hasan, would not disparage Chaloupka. Buatti and Hasan didn’t
immediately respond to phone messages left Monday. Howard’s office said
he would not be available to comment.

The document shows that
Chaloupka was allowed to keep his $380,000 per-year salary for the
2010-2011 academic year, even though he was moved to a non-clinical
position, with a different office and no access to the university’s
clinical computer records. He went from being a tenured full professor
in radiology and director of the neurointerventional radiology division
to a professor in the anatomy department and a research professor in
radiology.

The agreement calls for Chaloupka to get a $100,000 bonus if he left before Dec. 31, 2010 — but he did not collect that.

The
university released the record after the Iowa Supreme Court earlier
this month rejected Chaloupka’s request to hear the case, exhausting his
legal options to keep it secret after two lower courts had ordered the
release to the AP.

District
Judge Thomas Reidel ruled in February 2012 that the settlement with
Chaloupka was public under Iowa’s public records law and said taxpayers
had a right to know the details. He said the provision for a $100,000
bonus for Chaloupka’s prompt departure “dangles a carrot” that was of
interest to taxpayers.

He rejected Chaloupka’s argument that the
document wasn’t a “settlement agreement” — which are public in Iowa —
but rather a personnel record that should be confidential under state
law. The judge noted the document is titled “Settlement Agreement and
General Release” and was meant to resolve the parties’ disputes.

“The public has a right to know about arrangements governmental bodies make for the expenditure of public funds,” Reidel wrote.

The
Iowa Court of Appeals ruled upheld Reidel’s ruling in January. During
the appeal, Chaloupka argued that he expected the settlement would
remain secret when he signed it, and that its public release may affect
his relationships with colleagues and ability to get future employment.
But the court said a balancing test considering Chaloupka’s privacy
rights against the public’s need to know favored disclosure.

“We
conclude the gravity of the invasion into plaintiff’s personal privacy
does not exceed the public’s interest in the use of public funds,” Judge
David Danilson wrote for a unanimous three-member panel.

March 03, 2013

The University of Leicester has refused
to implement a decision issued by the Information Commissioner's
Office (ICO) recommending that the University should provide me with
my personal data held in manual files, which the ICO has found to constitute a
relevant filing system containing a single category of information, namely,
employment matters pertaining to me.

The data includes job application material such as
references, and documentation related to grievances lodged by me and the
associated legal proceedings against the University and others. (On my
legal proceedings, see on this website: 'About the University of
Leicester', 21 January 2010; 'Legal and other costs - the University of
Leicester and others', 17 April 2010; 'Professor Bob Burgess
(Vice-Chancellor, University of Leicester) and the honours system', 23 January
2011.)

The ICO's recommendation was issued after
investigation of a complaint received from me in 2012, the ICO concluding that
the University was likely to have breached the Data Protection Act in
withholding the personal data when I presented a subject access request.
The ICO also asked the University to take steps to prevent the situation from
happening again.

The University responded by requesting a review of
the ICO's decision, arguing that the information was unstructured personal data
related to personnel matters and as such was exempt from disclosure by virtue of
section 33A of the Data Protection Act. Having informed the ICO that since
it did not agree with the ICO's assessment it did not intend to disclose
the information to me, the University subsequently promised that it would
'clearly implement any final decision fully'. But when the final decision,
upholding the earlier decision, was delivered, the University reneged on that
promise, informing me by letter that it would not supply the data.

The ICO's hands are not tied in such a situation:
it could serve an enforcement notice on the data controller requiring it to
disclose the information to the data subject. (Failure to comply with an
enforcement notice is a criminal offence.) But the ICO has chosen not to
do this, also not responding to certain of my representations about its position
in this regard or to questions about the content of a telephone conversation
between it and the University just before the University sent me the letter
mentioned above advising that it would not disclose the data. (How can the
ICO promote openness if it struggles to apply the concept to its own
operations?)

In addition, the ICO has not adequately addressed other
problems such as apparent unlawful disclosure by the University of my sensitive
personal data.

The strength of the ICO's commitment to promoting the
relevant standards has been questioned by Members of Parliament and others in
various contexts. Matters raised by MPs have included concerns relating to
the ICO's investigation into blacklisting in the construction
industry.

Join the Bullied Academics Yahoo Group

Useful and informative Links

• Bad Apple Bullies - If you work as a teacher in Queensland, a Bad Apple Bully principal can destroy your health and your career with malicious gossip and secret sticky-notes.

---

• Bully Online - Those who can, do. Those who can't, bully. Bully OnLine is the world's leading web site on workplace bullying and related issues which validates the experience of workplace bullying and provides confirmation, reassurance and re-empowerment.

• Suppression of dissent - The general field of "suppression of dissent" includes whistleblowing, free speech, systems of social control and related topics. The purpose of the site is to foster examination of these issues and action against suppression. It is founded on the assumption that openness and dialogue should be fostered to challenge unaccountable power.

---

• The Workplace Bullying Institute is the sole United States organization dedicated to the eradication of workplace bullying through public education, help for individuals, employer solutions and legislative advocacy.